Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email highlights a very important historical analysis of the natural born citizen clause with regard to former Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:
During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”
Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:
Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.
He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized.
Long goes on to make the case that Hughes was not a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the Long article fails to mention former President Chester Arthur. Had Long knew Chester Arthur had also been born to a British subject father, then Long would have been forced to discuss that fact. But he didn’t.
The general public didn’t know Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject when Chester was born until December 2008 when that fact was first published right here.
And so, NBC-gate widens on a daily basis.
~~PING!
He hasn’t proven he was born in this country yet and his refusal to prove it proves he wasn’t.
save
The establishment acts upon and believes that he was born here of parents, one who was not a citizen of the USA. If he was born here what do you think that he is so desperate to hide?